Skip to main content
Glama
CodesWhat

portkey-admin-mcp

by CodesWhat
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

update_prompt_version

Assigns or removes a label on a specific prompt version; pass null to clear the label after looking up IDs.

Instructions

Update a specific prompt version's label assignment. This only assigns or removes a label, and null clears the label after you look up ids with list_prompt_labels.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
label_idYesLabel ID to assign to this version, or null to remove the label
prompt_idYesPrompt ID or slug
version_idYesVersion UUID to update

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the tool call succeeded and returned structured data
dataNoStructured success payload when ok is true
errorNoStructured error payload when ok is false

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.9
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.12.2
    • removedInput schema / properties / label_id / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / label_id / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
  3. Addedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent), so the description wisely focuses on what actually changes: only the label binding, with null as the removal signal. It does not explain the non-idempotent flag or side effects on anything referencing that label, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the scope constraint and the null rule. No filler or restated title text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and all three parameters documented, the description supplies the needed scope and lookup hint. A little context on what the label assignment affects downstream would make it fully complete, but nothing required for a correct call is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by telling the agent where label_id values come from (list_prompt_labels) and confirming null semantics, which is procedural meaning the schema alone doesn't convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a specific prompt version's label assignment') and immediately narrows scope with 'This only assigns or removes a label', which distinguishes it from the broader update_prompt / update_prompt_label siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete prerequisite workflow ('look up ids with list_prompt_labels') and the null-clears rule for removal. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., versus update_prompt_label for editing the label itself), so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools